by Syarif Hidayat
The Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL), also known as Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) terrorist group, that is a completely fabricated enemy created and funded by the United States, threatens Islam and the world. Former CIA contractor Steven Kelley says that the ISIL terrorist group is a completely fabricated enemy created and funded by the United States. “This is a completely fabricated enemy,” he said in a phone interview with Press TV from Anaheim, California on Thursday, August 28, 2014.
“The funding is completely from the United States and its allies and for people to think that this enemy is something that needs to be attacked in Syria or Iraq is a farce because obviously this is something that we create it, we control and only now it has become inconvenient for us to attack this group as a legitimate enemy,” Kelley added.
Prof Michel Chossudovsky in his article titled “The Engineered Destruction and Political Fragmentation of Iraq. Towards the Creation of a US Sponsored Islamist Caliphate,” published in Global Research, July 01, 2014, writes “The Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham: An instrument of the Western Military Alliance.”
Prof Michel in another article titled “The Islamic State, the “Caliphate Project” and the “Global War on Terrorism”” published in Global Research, July 02, 2014, wrote The Al Qaeda legend and the threat of the “Outside Enemy” is sustained through extensive media and government propaganda. In the post 9/11 era, the terrorist threat from Al Qaeda constitutes the building block of US-NATO military doctrine. It justifies –under a humanitarian mandate– the conduct of “counter-terrorism operations” Worldwide.
Known and documented, Al Qaeda affiliated entities have been used by US-NATO in numerous conflicts as “intelligence assets” since the heyday of the Soviet-Afghan war. In Syria, the Al Nusrah and ISIS rebels are the foot-soldiers of the Western military alliance, which in turn oversees and controls the recruitment and training of paramilitary forces.
While the US State Department is accusing several countries of “harboring terrorists”, America is the Number One “State Sponsor of Terrorism”: The Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham (ISIS) –which operates in both Syria and Iraq– is covertly supported and financed by the US and its allies including Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Qatar. Moreover, the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham’s Sunni caliphate project coincides with a longstanding US agenda to carve up both Iraq and Syria into separate territories: A Sunni Islamist Caliphate, an Arab Shia Republic, a Republic of Kurdistan, among others.
The US-led Global War on Terrorism (GWOT) constitutes the cornerstone of US military doctrine. “Going after Islamic terrorists” is part and parcel of non-conventional warfare. The underlying objective is to justify the conduct of counter-terrorism operations Worldwide, which enables the US and its allies to intervene in the affairs of sovereign countries.
Kevin Barrett in his article titled “Unislamic State (US): Satanic ‘caliphate’” writes They call themselves Islamic State (IS). They pretend to be a new caliphate. But their behavior is radically un-Islamic… even satanic. And their so-called caliphate is actually a false-flag operation against Islam. A better acronym would be US (Unislamic State). The initials are apt, since Unislamic State is the creation of the US and its regional allies. Their mission is to smear Islam, spread sectarian strife, destabilize the Middle East, and provide an excuse for endless US intervention in the Islamic world.
Former al-Qaeda commander Nabil Na’eem has exposed Unislamic State as a creation of the US and its Persian Gulf puppets. The intellectual authors of this Fourth Generation Warfare operation are neoconservative Zionists and New World Order satanists. The victims are the people of the Middle East… and the American people, who have been bled dry by the 9/11 wars. Na’eem has explained that the camps in Jordan where Unislamic State was created, armed, and trained were “supervised by US Marines.” He adds that the group’s funding is “all-American” and that more than one thousand of its terrorists are being treated in hospitals in Tel Aviv.
Unislamic State sponsors sham marriages to disguise liaisons with prostitutes. They rape and murder people purely on the basis of religious belief. They are committing genocide against religious minorities in Iraq and Syria, just as the Zionists are committing genocide in Palestine. They are doing everything possible to make Islam look bad. This has nothing to do with Islam. It has everything to do with the false-flag-based, 9/11-triggered New World Order war on Islam.
The grotesquely un-Islamic nature of Unislamic State is on display for all the world to see. These people post “selfie” videos cannibalizing the inner organs of battlefield corpses. This is the tradition of Hind – one of the worst-ever enemies of Islam – not the tradition of Islam, which insists on chivalrous battlefield behavior more fervently than any other group in history ever has. (The whole conception of chivalry, or futuwwa, is an Islamic invention that came to the West through al-Andalus, otherwise known as Islamic Spain.). The terrorists’ most recent youtube outrage: A video showing Unislamic State terrorists slaughtering Kurdish members of the Yazidi faith. The helpless Yazidi civilians are tied up, blindfolded, forced to kneel… and then their throats are cut as the satanic terrorists chant “Allah, accept our (human) sacrifice.”
The word for sacrificial animal in Islam is qurban. Every year during Eid al-Adha, the biggest Islamic holiday, Muslims sacrifice a sheep to commemorate God’s staying the hand of Abraham, who had prepared to sacrifice his son. The Eid holiday celebrates this event, which decisively put an end to human sacrifice for the whole monotheistic tradition of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. Calling a human being a qurban, and then cutting his throat, is the most insanely sacrilegious practice anyone could imagine. Any Muslim with a first-grade religious education knows that a person who does such a thing must be a satanist, not a Muslim.
The chief hallmark of satanism is its refusal of monotheism’s decisive rejection of human sacrifice. Whereas the biggest holiday for Christians is Christmas, which celebrates the end of human sacrifice through the birth of the Messiah – and the biggest holiday for Muslims is Eid, which celebrates the abolition of human sacrifice through the story of Abraham and his son – satanists use an assortment of pagan holidays as excuses to sacrifice innocent people, mostly children, at their blood-soaked altars.
When someone claiming to be Muslim conducts a ritual sacrifice of a human qurban, as the Unislamic State terrorists do, they are performing a satanic parody of the Muslim Eid ritual. Such parodies are another hallmark of satanism. Throughout the history of Christendom, satanists have held “black masses” in which the Catholic mass is parodied and victims are sacrificed… just as the Muslim Eid sacrifice is parodied by the Unislamic State terrorists’ slaughter of innocents.
How did this group of satanists posing as “radical Muslims” appear on the scene? Understanding the background of Unislamic State requires a background briefing on the Fourth Generation Warfare techniques of the satanic New World Order elite. The Western ruling elite is infested with satanists, who are a prime force behind the “war on terror,” which is actually a war on Islam and a war on God. Whistleblower Kay Griggs, the former wife of a US military officer, has documented the satanists’ penetration of the highest levels of the US military. Griggs says her husband forced her to participate in the most disgusting satanic rituals imaginable. She explains that these satanic practices are commonplace among top US military commanders.
One of the main strategists of the Fourth Generation Warfare operation known as the “War on Terror” is Col. Michael Aquino, the former head of all US military psychological warfare operations. Before being promoted to the post of Psy-Ops Chief, Aquino was expelled from the Church of Satan for being too evil, and then implicated in one of the most horrific child abuse scandals in American history.
It’s amazing what you have to do to get promoted in the US military.
Many of America’s top satanists are members of Skull and Bones, a group whose initiation ritual is too disgusting to be described here. The whole Bush family is Skull and Bones. This group dominates the drug-dealing wing of the CIA, and is reputed to engage in larcenies that occasionally total in the trillions of dollars. Examples include the theft of Japanese gold after World War II, and the looting of Leo Wanta’s 27.5-trillion-dollar haul from the CIA demolition of the USSR’s currency during the final decade of the Cold War.
The satanists’ New World Order project took a quantum leap forward in 2001. Their War on God was product-launched by the 9/11 public relations stunt, a satanic ritual mass human sacrifice that doubled as a global mind-control operation. For the gory details proving 9/11 was a satanic ritual, read S.K. Bain’s The Most Dangerous Book in the World, William Ramsey’s Prophet of Evil: Aleister Crowley, 9/11 and the New World Order, and Mujahid Kamran’s 9/11 and the New World Order… and listen to my Truth Jihad Radio interview with scholar Tom Breidenbach entitled “Was 9/11 a Human Sacrifice?”
One of the ways the satanists wage their War on Islam is by staging grotesque parodies of Islamic rituals and practices. For example, the World Trade Center – which was built by the Rockefellers expressly for destruction in the 9/11 satanic sacrifice – included a sphere “designed by trade center architect Minoru Yamasaki to mimic the Grand Mosque of Mecca, Masjid al-Haram, in which The Sphere stood at the place of the Kaaba” (Wikipedia). That sphere, representing the parodied kaaba – the cube in Mecca toward which all Muslims pray – was destroyed in the immolation of the Twin Towers and their inhabitants.
The satanists also parodied Islam by having the patsies hired to play the role of “9/11 hijackers” engage in ludicrously un-Islamic behavior. The Mossad impersonator playing the role of Mohamed Atta relished pork chops, strip clubs, hard liquor, drugs, and gambling excursions. The other “radical Muslim hijackers” led similar lifestyles. The night before 9/11, they got drunk in a bar and left an alcohol-soaked Qur’an on their table.
The day after 9/11, the authorities claimed they had solved the case by recovering Mohamed Atta’s supposed last will and testament from a suitcase that miraculously was left off the supposed Flight 11, which allegedly hit the North Tower. Atta’s alleged will begins: “In the name of God, myself, and my family…” This absurd opening is a satanic parody of the Islamic bismillah: “In the name of God, the merciful the compassionate.”
No Muslim would ever write the blasphemous phrase Atta supposedly wrote. And no hijacker planning to crash a plane into a building would put his will in his suitcase that was supposed to be aboard the plane. And no Muslim would even dream of asking God to accept their sacrifice… and then sacrifice a human being. Such a thing is unimaginable. The New World Order satanists are laughing at us. Their laughter is truly diabolical. And the Unislamic State’s pseudo-caliphate – a psychological warfare operation designed to impede the very “Islamic unity” project that the notion of the caliphate symbolizes – is one of their sickest jokes.
*Dr. Kevin Barrett, a Ph.D. Arabist-Islamologist, is one of America’s best-known critics of the War on Terror. Dr. Barrett has appeared many times on Fox, CNN, PBS and other broadcast outlets, and has inspired feature stories and op-eds in the New York Times, the Christian Science Monitor, the Chicago Tribune, and other leading publications. Dr. Barrett has taught at colleges and universities in San Francisco, Paris, and Wisconsin, where he ran for Congress in 2008. He is the co-founder of the Muslim-Christian-Jewish Alliance, and author of the books Truth Jihad: My Epic Struggle Against the 9/11 Big Lie (2007) and Questioning the War on Terror: A Primer for Obama Voters (2009). His website is http://www.truthjihad.com.
Alastair Crooke in his article titled “To understand ISIS look at the history of Saudi Arabia’s Wahhabism” published in huffingtonpost.com, wrote The dramatic arrival of Da’ish (ISIS) on the stage of Iraq has shocked many in the West. Many have been perplexed and horrified by its violence and its evident magnetism for Sunni youth. But more than this, they find Saudi Arabia’s ambivalence in the face of this manifestation both troubling and inexplicable, wondering, “Don’t the Saudis understand that ISIS threatens them, too?” It appears even now that Saudi Arabia’s ruling elite is divided. Some applaud that ISIS is fighting Iranian Shiite “fire” with Sunni “fire”; that a new Sunni state is taking shape at the very heart of what they regard as a historical Sunni patrimony; and they are drawn by Da’ish’s strict Salafist ideology.
Other Saudis are more fearful, and recall the history of the revolt against Abd-al Aziz by the Wahhabist Ikhwan (Disclaimer: this Ikhwan has nothing to do with the Muslim Brotherhood Ikhwan please note, all further references hereafter are to the Wahhabist Ikhwan, and not to the Muslim Brotherhood Ikhwan), but which nearly imploded Wahhabism and the al-Saud in the late 1920s. Many Saudis are deeply disturbed by the radical doctrines of Da’ish (ISIS) and are beginning to question some aspects of Saudi Arabia’s direction and discourse.
THE SAUDI DUALITY
Saudi Arabia’s internal discord and tensions over ISIS can only be understood by grasping the inherent (and persisting) duality that lies at the core of the Kingdom’s doctrinal makeup and its historical origins. One dominant strand to the Saudi identity pertains directly to Muhammad ibn ʿAbd al-Wahhab (the founder of Wahhabism), and the use to which his radical, exclusionist puritanism was put by Ibn Saud. (The latter was then no more than a minor leader amongst many of continually sparring and raiding Bedouin tribes in the baking and desperately poor deserts of the Nejd.)
The second strand to this perplexing duality, relates precisely to King Abd-al Aziz’s subsequent shift towards statehood in the 1920s: his curbing of Ikhwani violence (in order to have diplomatic standing as a nation-state with Britain and America); his institutionalization of the original Wahhabist impulse and the subsequent seizing of the opportunely surging petrodollar spigot in the 1970s, to channel the volatile Ikhwani current away from home towards export by diffusing a cultural revolution, rather than violent revolution throughout the Muslim world.
But this “cultural revolution” was no docile reformism. It was a revolution based on Abd al-Wahhab’s Jacobin-like hatred for the putrescence and deviationism that he perceived all about him hence his call to purge Islam of all its heresies and idolatries.
The American author and journalist, Steven Coll, has written how this austere and censorious disciple of the 14th century scholar Ibn Taymiyyah, Abd al-Wahhab, despised “the decorous, arty, tobacco smoking, hashish imbibing, drum pounding Egyptian and Ottoman nobility who travelled across Arabia to pray at Mecca.” In Abd al-Wahhab’s view, these were not Muslims; they were imposters masquerading as Muslims. Nor, indeed, did he find the behavior of local Bedouin Arabs much better. They aggravated Abd al-Wahhab by their honoring of saints, by their erecting of tombstones, and their “superstition” (e.g. revering graves or places that were deemed particularly imbued with the divine).
All this behavior, Abd al-Wahhab denounced as bida forbidden by God.
Like Taymiyyah before him, Abd al-Wahhab believed that the period of the Prophet Muhammad’s stay in Medina was the ideal of Muslim society (the “best of times”), to which all Muslims should aspire to emulate (this, essentially, is Salafism).
Taymiyyah had declared war on Shi’ism, Sufism and Greek philosophy. He spoke out, too against visiting the grave of the prophet and the celebration of his birthday, declaring that all such behavior represented mere imitation of the Christian worship of Jesus as God (i.e. idolatry). Abd al-Wahhab assimilated all this earlier teaching, stating that “any doubt or hesitation” on the part of a believer in respect to his or her acknowledging this particular interpretation of Islam should “deprive a man of immunity of his property and his life.”
One of the main tenets of Abd al-Wahhab’s doctrine has become the key idea oftakfir. Under the takfiri doctrine, Abd al-Wahhab and his followers could deem fellow Muslims infidels should they engage in activities that in any way could be said to encroach on the sovereignty of the absolute Authority (that is, the King). Abd al-Wahhab denounced all Muslims who honored the dead, saints, or angels. He held that such sentiments detracted from the complete subservience one must feel towards God, and only God. Wahhabi Islam thus bans any prayer to saints and dead loved ones, pilgrimages to tombs and special mosques, religious festivals celebrating saints, the honoring of the Muslim Prophet Muhammad’s birthday, and even prohibits the use of gravestones when burying the dead.
“Those who would not conform to this view should be killed, their wives and daughters violated, and their possessions confiscated, he wrote. “ Abd al-Wahhab demanded conformity a conformity that was to be demonstrated in physical and tangible ways. He argued that all Muslims must individually pledge their allegiance to a single Muslim leader (a Caliph, if there were one). Those who would not conform to this view should be killed, their wives and daughters violated, and their possessions confiscated, he wrote. The list of apostates meriting death included the Shiite, Sufis and other Muslim denominations, whom Abd al-Wahhab did not consider to be Muslim at all.
There is nothing here that separates Wahhabism from ISIS. The rift would emerge only later: from the subsequent institutionalization of Muhammad ibn ʿAbd al-Wahhab’s doctrine of “One Ruler, One Authority, One Mosque” these three pillars being taken respectively to refer to the Saudi king, the absolute authority of official Wahhabism, and its control of “the word” (i.e. the mosque). It is this rift the ISIS denial of these three pillars on which the whole of Sunni authority presently rests makes ISIS, which in all other respects conforms to Wahhabism, a deep threat to Saudi Arabia.
BRIEF HISTORY 1741- 1818
Abd al-Wahhab’s advocacy of these ultra radical views inevitably led to his expulsion from his own town — and in 1741, after some wanderings, he found refuge under the protection of Ibn Saud and his tribe. What Ibn Saud perceived in Abd al-Wahhab’s novel teaching was the means to overturn Arab tradition and convention. It was a path to seizing power.
“Their strategy — like that of ISIS today — was to bring the peoples whom they conquered into submission. They aimed to instill fear. “
Ibn Saud’s clan, seizing on Abd al-Wahhab’s doctrine, now could do what they always did, which was raiding neighboring villages and robbing them of their possessions. Only now they were doing it not within the ambit of Arab tradition, but rather under the banner of jihad. Ibn Saud and Abd al-Wahhab also reintroduced the idea of martyrdom in the name of jihad, as it granted those martyred immediate entry into paradise.
In the beginning, they conquered a few local communities and imposed their rule over them. (The conquered inhabitants were given a limited choice: conversion to Wahhabism or death.) By 1790, the Alliance controlled most of the Arabian Peninsula and repeatedly raided Medina, Syria and Iraq. Their strategy — like that of ISIS today — was to bring the peoples whom they conquered into submission. They aimed to instill fear. In 1801, the Allies attacked the Holy City of Karbala in Iraq. They massacred thousands of Shiites, including women and children. Many Shiite shrines were destroyed, including the shrine of Imam Hussein, the murdered grandson of Prophet Muhammad.
A British official, Lieutenant Francis Warden, observing the situation at the time, wrote: “They pillaged the whole of it [Karbala], and plundered the Tomb of Hussein… slaying in the course of the day, with circumstances of peculiar cruelty, above five thousand of the inhabitants …”
Osman Ibn Bishr Najdi, the historian of the first Saudi state, wrote that Ibn Saud committed a massacre in Karbala in 1801. He proudly documented that massacre saying, “we took Karbala and slaughtered and took its people (as slaves), then praise be to Allah, Lord of the Worlds, and we do not apologize for that and say: ‘And to the unbelievers: the same treatment.’”
In 1803, Abdul Aziz then entered the Holy City of Mecca, which surrendered under the impact of terror and panic (the same fate was to befall Medina, too). Abd al-Wahhab’s followers demolished historical monuments and all the tombs and shrines in their midst. By the end, they had destroyed centuries of Islamic architecture near the Grand Mosque.
But in November of 1803, a Shiite assassin killed King Abdul Aziz (taking revenge for the massacre at Karbala). His son, Saud bin Abd al Aziz, succeeded him and continued the conquest of Arabia. Ottoman rulers, however, could no longer just sit back and watch as their empire was devoured piece by piece. In 1812, the Ottoman army, composed of Egyptians, pushed the Alliance out from Medina, Jeddah and Mecca. In 1814, Saud bin Abd al Aziz died of fever. His unfortunate son Abdullah bin Saud, however, was taken by the Ottomans to Istanbul, where he was gruesomely executed (a visitor to Istanbul reported seeing him having been humiliated in the streets of Istanbul for three days, then hanged and beheaded, his severed head fired from a canon, and his heart cut out and impaled on his body).
In 1815, Wahhabi forces were crushed by the Egyptians (acting on the Ottoman’s behalf) in a decisive battle. In 1818, the Ottomans captured and destroyed the Wahhabi capital of Dariyah. The first Saudi state was no more. The few remaining Wahhabis withdrew into the desert to regroup, and there they remained, quiescent for most of the 19th century.
HISTORY RETURNS WITH ISIS
It is not hard to understand how the founding of the Islamic State by ISIS in contemporary Iraq might resonate amongst those who recall this history. Indeed, the ethos of 18th century Wahhabism did not just wither in Nejd, but it roared back into life when the Ottoman Empire collapsed amongst the chaos of World War I.
The Al Saud — in this 20th century renaissance — were led by the laconic and politically astute Abd-al Aziz, who, on uniting the fractious Bedouin tribes, launched the Saudi “Ikhwan” in the spirit of Abd-al Wahhab’s and Ibn Saud’s earlier fighting proselytisers.
The Ikhwan was a reincarnation of the early, fierce, semi-independent vanguard movement of committed armed Wahhabist “moralists” who almost had succeeded in seizing Arabia by the early 1800s. In the same manner as earlier, the Ikhwan again succeeded in capturing Mecca, Medina and Jeddah between 1914 and 1926. Abd-al Aziz, however, began to feel his wider interests to be threatened by the revolutionary “Jacobinism” exhibited by the Ikhwan. The Ikhwan revolted — leading to a civil war that lasted until the 1930s, when the King had them put down: he machine-gunned them.
For this king, (Abd-al Aziz), the simple verities of previous decades were eroding. Oil was being discovered in the peninsular. Britain and America were courting Abd-al Aziz, but still were inclined to support Sharif Husain as the only legitimate ruler of Arabia. The Saudis needed to develop a more sophisticated diplomatic posture. So Wahhabism was forcefully changed from a movement of revolutionary jihad and theological takfiri purification, to a movement of conservative social, political, theological, and religious da’wa (Islamic call) and to justifying the institution that upholds loyalty to the royal Saudi family and the King’s absolute power.
OIL WEALTH SPREAD WAHHABISM
With the advent of the oil bonanza — as the French scholar, Giles Kepel writes, Saudi goals were to “reach out and spread Wahhabism across the Muslim world … to “Wahhabise” Islam, thereby reducing the “multitude of voices within the religion” to a “single creed” — a movement which would transcend national divisions. Billions of dollars were — and continue to be — invested in this manifestation of soft power.
It was this heady mix of billion dollar soft power projection — and the Saudi willingness to manage Sunni Islam both to further America’s interests, as it concomitantly embedded Wahhabism educationally, socially and culturally throughout the lands of Islam — that brought into being a western policy dependency on Saudi Arabia, a dependency that has endured since Abd-al Aziz’s meeting with Roosevelt on a U.S. warship (returning the president from the Yalta Conference) until today.
Westerners looked at the Kingdom and their gaze was taken by the wealth; by the apparent modernization; by the professed leadership of the Islamic world. They chose to presume that the Kingdom was bending to the imperatives of modern life — and that the management of Sunni Islam would bend the Kingdom, too, to modern life.
“On the one hand, ISIS is deeply Wahhabist. On the other hand, it is ultra radical in a different way. It could be seen essentially as a corrective movement to contemporary Wahhabism.”
But the Saudi Ikhwan approach to Islam did not die in the 1930s. It retreated, but it maintained its hold over parts of the system — hence the duality that we observe today in the Saudi attitude towards ISIS. On the one hand, ISIS is deeply Wahhabist. On the other hand, it is ultra radical in a different way. It could be seen essentially as a corrective movement to contemporary Wahhabism.
ISIS is a “post-Medina” movement: it looks to the actions of the first two Caliphs, rather than the Prophet Muhammad himself, as a source of emulation, and it forcefully denies the Saudis’ claim of authority to rule.
As the Saudi monarchy blossomed in the oil age into an ever more inflated institution, the appeal of the Ikhwan message gained ground (despite King Faisal’s modernization campaign). The “Ikhwan approach” enjoyed — and still enjoys — the support of many prominent men and women and sheikhs. In a sense, Osama bin Laden was precisely the representative of a late flowering of this Ikhwani approach.
Today, ISIS’ undermining of the legitimacy of the King’s legitimacy is not seen to be problematic, but rather a return to the true origins of the Saudi-Wahhab project. In the collaborative management of the region by the Saudis and the West in pursuit of the many western projects (countering socialism, Ba’athism, Nasserism, Soviet and Iranian influence), western politicians have highlighted their chosen reading of Saudi Arabia (wealth, modernization and influence), but they chose to ignore the Wahhabist impulse.
After all, the more radical Islamist movements were perceived by Western intelligence services as being more effective in toppling the USSR in Afghanistan — and in combatting out-of-favor Middle Eastern leaders and states.
Why should we be surprised then, that from Prince Bandar’s Saudi-Western mandate to manage the insurgency in Syria against President Assad should have emerged a neo-Ikhwan type of violent, fear-inducing vanguard movement: ISIS? And why should we be surprised — knowing a little about Wahhabism — that “moderate” insurgents in Syria would become rarer than a mythical unicorn? Why should we have imagined that radical Wahhabism would create moderates? Or why could we imagine that a doctrine of “One leader, One authority, One mosque: submit to it, or be killed” could ever ultimately lead to moderation or tolerance?
Or, perhaps, we never imagined, concluded Alastair Crooke. Alastair Crooke, sometimes erroneously referred to as Alistair Crooke, (born 1950) is a British diplomat, the founder and director of the Conflicts Forum, an organisation that advocates for engagement between political Islam and the West.Previously he was a ranking figure in both British intelligence (MI6) and European Union diplomacy.(HSH)